Court claim

Redx

its a fairly reasonable attempt at a WS however

1shaz1234

Sorry guys I'll try again

1shaz1234

Hi there yes I did complete the AoS on time and i have until tomorrow to submit my defence.
Here is my updated defence.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
Euro Parking Services Limited(Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

1. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The defendant chooses to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is their right.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. With the unclear signage and parking signs, given that there was poor visibilty on the day, the driver of the vehicle had not seen the signage and had simply pulled over to load a passenger and left in a very short time period. The signage was insufficient and illegible as there was poor visibilty given the cloudy, rainy winter day thus meaning that the driver did not enter into any agreement. The photos that were sent with the PCN were only the back of the vehicle, there was not any attempt to talk or warn the driver whilst they were sat in the car to tell them they needed to move. In the photos you can also see that the person that took them had used the flash feature on his or her camera, this further proves my point of there being poor visibilty on the early afternoon rainy winter day the unfair PCN was issued.

5. The Claimant also did not comply with the Part B, section 15 of the Code of Practice regarding grace periods: The photographic evidence submitted by Euro Parking Services in the PCN were dated and time stamped but never in any letter did they show how long the vehicle was parked there for, this may really be because the driver had literally only pulled over to load their passenger and also because the vehicle was there and gone in around 5 minutes.

6. The driver was also given no fair chance to read any terms at all, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 “contractual costs”, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. The Defendant requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Redx

it should say DEFENCE just before the first point , like you see in the BARGEPOLE concise defence , and it should be numbered, like his defence too

it should also have this at the bottom, not what you have written or copied

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

instead of not looking at and not following his formatting in his defences , I suggest you completely conform to his layout, so that people can comment on the content of your defence instead of its lack of structure,. You seem determined to not follow the advice and not follow the BARGEPOLE examples either

this is simple common sense, follow those that know better, like BARGEPOLE who is qualified in this field, hence why we keep dropping his "name"

1shaz1234

I have put in a defence heading and adjusted the last sentence, I believe I have followed his layout. If not please tell me what else I need to input and I shall change. Thank you

Redx

I already told you above what you have done wrong

no numbering for starters, how do you expect people to criticise without numbering the sections ?

the last sentence is incorrect as well, because I just checked his defences against yours to see what common errors there were , so I edited my post to include his statement of truth, this isnt rocket science

LEAVING IT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE HASNT HELPED EITHER

Redx

are you sure that GLADSTONES the solicitors is the claimant ?


surely its EURO PARKING SERVICES ? (the parking company)

1shaz1234

Yes thank you for pointing that out, Euro parking services are in fact the claimant. I have adjusted my defence and the last sentence or did you mean my last point? Number 8?

Le_Kirk

You need something to set the basis of the claim such as: -

n. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at XXXXX XXXX Car Park

Redx

1shaz1234 wrote: »

Yes thank you for pointing that out, Euro parking services are in fact the claimant. I have adjusted my defence and the last sentence or did you mean my last point? Number 8?

looks a lot better now

no , not point 8 , but the last sentence (the statement of truth) was what I meant

so now its a raeasonable draft you need to adapt it according to any critique of the content (or lack of) , like mentioned above , address things like POC and whatever the signage offered , or did not offer , as in FORBIDDING SIGNAGE ?

so you have the basics correct now, so the content is now what matters, so it may need edits, additions and subtractions, as appropriate , which I have no training to give

the advice I gave was common sense, especially when the layout of HEADER , FOOTER and NUMBERING was already written by BARGEPOLE

so a lot better, now just need suitable edits etc before it is submitted by email by 4pm tomorrow, as a signed and dated pdf attachment